Hi Lee,
Here's an attempt:
*
Does anybody on this group actually have a say about what agency
controls the money? That seems doubtful to me. *probably not (certainly not
me)*
*
Would DARPA want to do the job? They do actually have serious work of
their own, and SRM might be a no-win situation for them. *maybe,
they've done it before -*
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/03/exclusive-milit.html
*
Is China willing to commit to the principle that the PLA have nothing
to do with China's own climate engineering research -- when they decide to
undertake such an effort -- if they are not already embarked on it? Would we
want them to make such a commitment? Would we believe them if they did? *China
probably could not make a credible commitment of this sort, but it certainly
could not if the US entrusted geoengineering to the Defense Department.
Assigning climate engineering to DARPA would virtually invite China to
securitize geoengineering, as opposed to supporting a mixed
civilian/military program that would be preferable for all - I think a mixed
Chinese program is entirely plausible.*
*
Is there any chance of placating Greenpeace and their ilk, and, if
not, why bother trying? *Probably not, but why needlessly antagonize? It's
worth trying because these groups help shape the overarching political
environment.
*
Here's some additional text I wrote for SMRGI: "Similarly, military
involvement in SRM research is deeply controversial and liable to fracture
any international consensus in support of geoengineering. The
“weaponization” of advanced technologies is a familiar phenomenon in
research and development, and many scientists, policymakers, and other
observers have raised serious concerns about the consequences of military
participation in SRM research activities. The involvement of defense
ministries could reduce transparency, create mistrust, destabilize regional
security architectures, and possibly violate provisions of the Convention on
the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental
Modification Techniques (ENMOD). Military participation would promote a
climate of suspicion, wariness, and doubt certain to impede attempts at
fostering international collaboration. Again, in order to ensure a broad
consensus behind any eventual decision to deploy SRM, research governance
arrangements should prohibit military establishments and related defense
agencies from taking part in SRM research."
Josh
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Lane, Lee O. <[email protected]> wrote:
> I too, worry about the factors that you and Oliver cite, but the choice
> seems more ambiguous than you make it sound. DARPA is at least competent. I
> am not sure that the same can be said of any of the climate related civilian
> R&D entities. Many of course have able people, but the congressional
> tendency to use them as sources of pork barrel politics is a problem. DARPA
> has not entirely escaped this disease, but it has suffered less than the
> civilian agencies.
>
> Prior questions:
>
> *
> Does anybody on this group actually have a say about what agency
> controls the money? That seems doubtful to me.
> *
> Would DARPA want to do the job? They do actually have serious work
> of their own, and SRM might be a no-win situation for them.
> *
> Is China willing to commit to the principle that the PLA have
> nothing to do with China's own climate engineering research -- when they
> decide to undertake such an effort -- if they are not already embarked on
> it? Would we want them to make such a commitment? Would we believe them if
> they did?
> *
> Is there any chance of placating Greenpeace and their ilk, and, if
> not, why bother trying?
>
> I am not sure, but I tend to suspect that the answers to all these
> questions might be negative. In that case, the point might be moot.
>
> Lee
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: [email protected] on behalf of Josh Horton
> Sent: Tue 4/19/2011 11:36 AM
> To: geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] Re: How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most
> reduce climate risk?
>
>
>
> I agree, this would be a grave mistake. There would be no surer way
> of firing up international political opposition to geoengineering,
> mobilizing civil society, encouraging suspicion and hostility, even
> dragging in ENMOD. Imagine how China would react! Whether or not the
> military has the appropriate capacity, handing it to DARPA would be
> hugely counterproductive.
>
> Josh
>
>
> On Apr 19, 3:39 am, Oliver Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I think giving the whole thing to Darpa would be a great mistake. The
> > symbolism of the D in Darpa would not be lost on international
> politicians
> > and potential participants (to say nothing of Greenpeace). And I think
> > designing policy specifically to be Anthony-Watts proof is a mug's game.
> > Much better to innovate in another context than to take a Darpa program
> > architecture, and the baggage of the pentgon connections, off the shelf.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:06 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Ken with few ccs
> >
> > > 1. Thanks for reporting this $10 M news (and probably for scouting
> it
> > > up)
> >
> > > 2. Oliver's note (below) comes closest to my own of the ideas so
> far
> > > put forth. It may be presumptive to assume multi year funding (and
> anything
> > > over $10 million in the first year), but why not assume a continuing
> > > effort? I endorse the idea of three parallel SRM efforts. I hope one
> would
> > > be "Bright Water" - as it has been more on this list recently ((and
> > > positively) than any other - and it seems to have special relevance to
> the
> > > Arctic. Oliver's call for some independent efforts is also worthy.
> >
> > > 3. Oliver didn't mention the Arctic. I put in my vote for
> limiting
> > > activities to the Alaskan portion of the Arctic. Rationale - Alaska is
> way
> > > ahead of the rest of the country in recognizing something is happening.
> We
> > > can probably do almost nothing soon in Canada, Russia, Greenland,
> Iceland
> > > and Norway - but we should try immediately to get parallel efforts
> going in
> > > all. Some funds should be reserved to encourage their attendance at
> events.
> >
> > > 4. Oliver calls out CDR in the context of some possibilities that
> are
> > > neither CDR or SRM. I would lump these possibilities with CDR and
> reserve
> > > perhaps 15-20% for those. Rationale - need for low cost and speed,
> but
> > > also need buy-in from CDR-folk. Any big activity will suffer
> politically
> > > .if CDR is not coupled with SRM, and if there is not a darn good reason
> for
> > > leaving something out. One option alone would be a disaster, especially
> if
> > > theri effects can be shown to be additive and not duplicative.
> >
> > > 5. Oliver mentions DARPA. I think it would (stronger than
> "might") be
> > > wise to ask them to lead. Rationale - politics. Few AGW critics (eg
> > > Watts) are going to say anything negative about DARPA. In this regard,
> I
> > > see that DARPA met at Stanford in 2009 on this topic - so you should be
> in a
> > > position to know if they would be interested (as a favor to the actual
> > > agency with funds).
> > > [
> > >http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/03/exclusive-milit.html]
> >
> > > 6. Carrying politics further, I hope you or someone can soon
> alert
> > > Alaska's 2 R's and 1 D in the Congress. This whole package should not
> be
> > > sold as having anything to do with AGW. All three of the elected
> > > representatives seem to agree that temperaures are rising rapidly. in
> Alaska
> > > and they must have some appreciation of pending methane release. None
> want
> > > to talk about causality - and we don't need to either. I believe they
> would
> > > not object strongly to money being spent primarily in Alaska. Your
> project
> > > (everything discussed on this list) needs political cover. If you can
> get
> > > the idea attributed to Rush or Glenn, all the better. Mitt Romney, Tim
> > > Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich might even find it politically expedient to
> weigh
> > > in; we are not talking taxes here.
> >
> > > 7. Native Americans may/could/should have a role in this -
> especially
> > > as regards CDR use of dead/fallen trees and re-vegetation with high
> > > reflectivity biomass. They make up the population most impacted. More
> > > political cover.
> >
> > > 8. Last is the issue of speed. I hope you are talking about this
> > > fiscal year's funding - and it would be great if you/DARPA could have
> some
> > > experimental results by the end of FY11. This will only be possible
> with
> > > something autocratic - and DARPA seems to know how to do that. But
> they
> > > will certainly listen to informal proposals - presumably from teams.
> One
> > > month to do that should be enough - being informal.
> >
> > > 9. Re speed and expertise I urge giving the modeling task
> (mentioned by
> > > several) to Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski. I think he is the only modeler
> (and he
> > > has a big team) who has been correctly predicting the timing of an
> ice-free
> > > Arctic (now apparently at 2016 +/- 3 years). See
> > > http://www.oc.nps.edu/NAME/Maslowski_CV.htm and
> > >http://www.oc.nps.edu/NAME/name.html
> > > Having a connection with the US Navy has some other advantages - but
> > > those are not the reason for pushing his involvement. He knows the
> Arctic
> > > intimately.
> >
> > > Again, thanks for very welcome news (and your behind the scenes
> > > searching?).
> >
> > > Ron
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Oliver Morton" <[email protected]>
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 5:36:33 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to
> most
> > > reduce climate risk?
> >
> > > Broad RFPs for multi-year consortia -- maybe four three-year $5million
> > > grants to begin with. Define the goals that the research should support
> --
> > > eg development and assessment of a 1W/m^2 (global average) SRM
> technology --
> > > not the technologies that should be used. Provide a way for the
> scoring
> > > process to reward breadth of approach and ambition as well as (but not
> in
> > > place of) technical excellence. Appoint a program manager with a proven
> > > track and leadership record. (This is a bit Darpa-like -- not such a
> bad
> > > thing)
> >
> > > In parallel, some two year single investigator grants, given on the
> basis
> > > that can roll them into a consortium if you think that's wise. Some
> focus
> > > here on generics eg modelling of scenarios. Include social sciences and
> > > humanities here.
> >
> > > Budget for an intensive workshop stage for all grantees 18 months in.
> Issue
> > > a new RFP at the two-year mark for two new consortia. Extension for two
> best
> > > performing of the original consortia at three years, perhaps forcing
> some
> > > refugees form the salon des refuses onto the winning teams. (Program
> > > managers earn their keep that way)
> >
> > > A specific protected budget for single investigators or small
> > > collaborations working on technologies and approaches with a so-far
> > > non-existent or at least minimal publication record. Favourite example
> --
> > > systems for stopping glaciers. Cirrus management of outgoing IR might
> also
> > > fit. There are various geoengineering technologies that don't fit into
> > > CDR/SRM, such as those that seek to reallocate energy flows within the
> > > system. At the moment they are largely ignored. Expanding the universe
> of
> > > discourse this way should be a priority.
> >
> > > Always, in general, define the questions, not the technologies you
> already
> > > see as the answers.
> >
> > > o
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Ken Caldeira <
> > > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> Folks,
> >
> > >> There is some discussion in DC about making some small amount of
> public
> > >> funds available to support SRM and CDR research.
> >
> > >> In today's funding climate, it is much more likely that someone might
> be
> > >> given authority to re-allocate existing budgets than that they would
> > >> actually be given significantly more money for this effort. Thus, the
> modest
> > >> scale.
> >
> > >> If you were doing strategic planning for a US federal agency, and you
> were
> > >> told that you had a budget of $10 million per year and that you should
> > >> maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10
> > >> million, what would you allocate it to and why?
> >
> > >> Best,
> >
> > >> Ken
> >
> > >> ___________________________________________________
> > >> Ken Caldeira
> >
> > >> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> > >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> > >> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected]
> > >>http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
> >
> > >> --
> > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > >> "geoengineering" group.
> > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > >> [email protected].
> > >> For more options, visit this group at
> > >>http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
> >
> > > --
> > > O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O
> >
> > > Oliver Morton
> > > Energy and Environment Editor
> > > The Economist
> >
> > > +44 7971 064 059
> >
> > > O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O
> >
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > > "geoengineering" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > [email protected].
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
> >
> > --
> > O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O
> >
> > Oliver Morton
> > Energy and Environment Editor
> > The Economist
> >
> > +44 7971 064 059
> >
> > O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
